Four Hoops for the CRC


I’ve been mulling over the recommendations of the Columbia River Crossing Independent Review Panel, and the reactions to the report in the community, thinking about how this thing is going to move forward. It seems to me that there are two likely outcomes:

1) Collapse of the project, and a restart at some point in the future
2) A 10-lane bridge, initially striped for 8 lanes

While the Oregonian continues to argue for bigger, I don’t think that’s likely – if only because of the realities of finance, and because at least some local leaders haven’t completely forgotten the Climate Action Plan and the idea that even with many more people, we’re going to have to drive fewer miles (each and in total).

But I also think that short of collapse of the current project, a more climate-sensible approach like a supplemental bridge (or bridges) is unlikely.

So what would it take to get to the ‘possible’ project to really happen? I see several hurdles:

1) Generate agreement on who’s in charge. My belief is that unless the DOT’s give real control over ongoing performance of the bridge to local officials in the form of some kind of Performance Management Council, this project is over. I’m dubious however that this is going to happen, at least before Oregon has a new Governor. (Note that this is different from who manages construction.)

2) The project team has to get real about the design and the costs. They have a budget estimate that relates to a different design than the one they’re promoting, and the new design is untested.

3) Vancouver has to sign off on Light Rail and Tolls. This will take the form of November’s ballot on transit operating funds for Light Rail. Don’t kid yourself that the campaign will not in large part be about tolls.

4) The Legislatures in both states are going to have to come up with several hundred million dollars each, and given the current economic climate, that may be the hardest of all the hurdles. Watch the 2011 sessions carefully for the fireworks.

Should we start a pool on the outcomes? Anyone care to design a CRC ‘bracket’? Are there more hoops I haven’t identified? (I didn’t forget about Federal funding, but I’m assuming that if the three above things happen, that will follow.)


20 responses to “Four Hoops for the CRC”

  1. I support a supplemental bridge in theory, but that option now is the same as starting over. No real evaluation has been done on that option because the DOT’s have considered it outside the scope of the project. The little work the was done on a supplemental bridge was to highlight its difficulties, not create a viable project.

    I doubt the vote in Vancouver is going to be about tolls. The connection between tolls and light rail is too indirect to work as an election issue. More likely it will be about crime – see the discussion here. That doesn’t mean tolling opponents won’t try to help defeat the measure. But that isn’t going to be the media narrative. Its too complicated.

    I think for the project to move forward it needs a Governor who is prepared to ignore public opinion in Portland. It needs the Building Trades to persuade the rest of organized labor that, regardless of its merits, this is an important economic stimulant for the local economy. It needs the business community to make the bridge an issue that rural Republicans need to support.

    Between business and labor, they need to make the bridge something the Oregon congressional delegation feels it has to deliver. An unenthusiastic endorsement of a federal request from Blumenauer and Defazio is not going to be enough with everyone in the country looking for federal dollars to stimulate their local economy.

    In short, the project needs a political consensus at the state level in Oregon that is prepared to roll over any local interests or objections. I think Washington is probably already there relative to Vancouver on the tolling and light rail issues.

    And I think it is important to realize that in that context, the projects high costs are not a liability. It means more more federal dollars coming into the region to create more jobs. The details of the design, traffic impacts, transit choices and management are basically irrelevant.

  2. Are we at the point that we will built this thing just for the jobs? If that’s the case, just hire people to dig a hole and then refill it. Long term it will do less damage then this bridge as designed.

  3. 1) Generate agreement on who’s in charge.
    That could be legislated. The states could simply tell lawmakers to pass bills with emergency clauses. They could tell legislators of directly affected districts with large constituent populations concerned about air quality, losing property or even their entire community that if they don’t vote for the bills that they will lose committee assignments and the committees responsible for their personal bills will kill them in committee. They (the states) could also tell municipalities that they need to shut up and go back to their respective city halls “or else.”

    Anyone who’s ever followed politics knows this kind of stuff happens on a regular basis.

    2) The project team has to get real about the design and the costs.
    But, if they don’t over-inflate the budget, how will they get more money for their next project? (Yes, that statement was inspired by the movie “Falling Down.”)

    3) Vancouver has to sign off on Light Rail and Tolls. This will take the form of November’s ballot on transit operating funds for Light Rail.
    We’ll have to wait until November 2011 (15 months from now) for that vote. If Oregon and Portland-based decision-makers are smart, they will let eligible voters on the Washington side of the Columbia River weigh the merits and disadvantages on their own when they make that vote. Again to be smart, they would also use the vote not only in a literal but also advisory capacity when making plans for the next 20-50 years or so.

    4) The Legislatures in both states are going to have to come up with several hundred million dollars each…
    Let’s remember that Washington is also replacing the Alaska Way Viaduct and Multnomah County is trying to replace the Sellwood Bridge. Again IMO, CRC is far from the most important transportation project in either Washington or Oregon.

  4. Chris,

    Yes, you have left Portland out of your hoops. Don’t you think the rhetoric out of the Mayor’s office has to change substantially if the 10 lane / 8 lane striped bridge is to be built?

    Another “hoop” that could be substantial is if Bob Stacey came out in favor of the 10 lane / 8 lane option rather than continuing to float the supplemental bridge option.

    I’m glad to see your reaction to the options, though. As one who has been in favor of some sort of bridge replacement, I’m glad to see that we agree on where we are. The 10/8 option seems to me a very reasonable compromise between those who believe that we have to allow for a future than may have continued reliance on truck transport and autos, and those who believe that the future will be a radically changed residential and work pattern.

    The 10/8 option is within our economic means and has the flexibility to be adapted to a number of different future development paths.

  5. Since we build light rail “for the future”, we need to apply that standard to something useful like the bridge and be sure NOT to under build it as the IRC recommended.

    We must build at least 6 lanes each way.

    To conform to the climate action plan we must dump the transit components as transit uses more energy per passenger-mile than small cars. We may also want to be sure there is NO TOLL on small cars to encourage less CO2.

    Thanks
    JK

  6. Paul,

    I think the joint statement from Adams and Bragdon is a pretty clear message of support for the 10/8 approach as long as the DOTs will turn performance management over to local control.

    The compromise is the first hoop.

  7. Local control of an interstate freeway!!!

    Not to mention that the nuts at Metro and Pdot will turn it into a bike path and ban cars. They might permit trucks.

    Thanks
    JK

  8. Metro and the City council are elected by the people, OTC is not. Time for a little more democracy in the transportation sector.

  9. Chris, my attempt to spark some discussion on BlueOregon has gone down to flaming defeat. Sorry, tried my best. Keep swinging, I am really pleased to see a compromise emerge.

    How do you think this will affect the Metro race?

  10. transit uses more energy per passenger-mile than small cars

    Even when the transit is a full light rail train?

    NO TOLL on small cars to encourage less CO2

    I’m wanting to argue that that’s unfair to others. But moreover, they still cause much more pollution and other harm than a person riding and already-existing transit service. (And no, light rail doesn’t currently exist to Washington, but it seems to be a political certainty)

    the nuts at Metro and Pdot will turn it into a bike path

    I think you’d find that to be a (Federal) legal impossibility.

  11. Jason McHuff Says: (quoting JK) transit uses more energy per passenger-mile than small cars

    Even when the transit is a full light rail train?
    JK: That is not the real world. Trains are only full part of the time and cannot work in isolation, so lets look at the systems that have both bus and rail: System wide energy usage is equivalent to a 21-25 mpg car. See third chart on: http://www.portlandfacts.com/top10bus.html

    BTW, The average Portland bus has 9.9 people on it and is equal to 22-26 pg car.
    The ten largest transit agencies in the country are no better – their average bus carries 13.55 people – a nice improvement. But their energy use is worse — equivalent to a 20-24 mpg car

    Jason McHuff Says: (quoting JK) NO TOLL on small cars to encourage less CO2

    I’m wanting to argue that that’s unfair to others. But moreover, they still cause much more pollution and other harm than a person riding and already-existing transit service. (And no, light rail doesn’t currently exist to Washington, but it seems to be a political certainty)
    JK: Appearently you don’t know that pollution comes from burning fuel. Since transit USES MORE FUEL than a small car, your proposal pollutes more, not less.

    Jason McHuff Says: (quoting JK) the nuts at Metro and Pdot will turn it into a bike path

    I think you’d find that to be a (Federal) legal impossibility.
    JK: The hypothesis was giving Local control of an interstate freeway to the nuts at Metro & Pdot.

    Thanks
    JK

  12. to the nuts

    Oh knock it off.

    All you’ve done all week is hurl insults in random directions, both at people who are commenting here (as supposed enemies of freedom) and unidentified forces aligned against you.

    You’ve had plenty of warning to clean up you act. Shape up, or take another comment vacation. Final warning.

  13. In the real world, there are well-used bus and light rail trips (which serve areas where replacing with small cars would not be feasible, and this includes the Yellow Line corridor), its not always feasible to switch a big fuel-hungry bus for one more efficient when demand is lower, many people need something more than a small car for when they’re not commuting, many other people are unable to drive, and many commuter vehicles have a grand total of one occupant in them (which changes your calculations).

  14. Jason McHuff Says: In the real world, there are well-used bus and light rail trips (which serve areas where replacing with small cars would not be feasible, and this includes the Yellow Line corridor),
    JK: So what? Trimet is a system, you can’t just cherry pick the lines that are the most efficient. And why are some areas not feasible for small cars?

    Jason McHuff Says: its not always feasible to switch a big fuel-hungry bus for one more efficient when demand is lower,
    JK: That is just one of the many real world factors that make transit less efficient than small cars.

    Jason McHuff Says: many people need something more than a small car for when they’re not commuting,
    JK: How is that relevant? But they could get a hybrid SUV.

    Jason McHuff Says: many other people are unable to drive,
    JK: And there are cheaper and better ways to serve them than to build 4 Billion worth of light rail.

    Jason McHuff Says: and many commuter vehicles have a grand total of one occupant in them (which changes your calculations).
    JK: Please read the refrence – it specifies that the mpg is for cars with an average of 1.3 and 1.57 passengers. So ONE OCCUPANT CARS IS IN THE DATA GIVEN.

    Thanks
    JK

  15. you can’t just cherry pick the lines that are the most efficient

    When drivers have to pay for the real cost of driving and things that encourage driving (i.e. low density development), then we can discuss that. And my hope is that if that were the case, much more trips would be well-utilized.

    In addition, if that lesser service is not provided, people might not use the service that is efficient and really makes a difference. Because TriMet is indeed a system.

    why are some areas not feasible for small cars

    Oh maybe where there’s heavy traffic and not tons of parking?

    That is just one of the many real world factors that make transit less efficient than small cars

    And trying to solve that problem by switching between small and big buses adds expenses–having to go get the other bus and having to have two separate fleets. In addition, its been said that smaller buses wear out sooner.

    How is that relevant?

    Maybe because having a small car is not practical for them?

    But they could get a hybrid SUV

    Requires another vehicle being built (considering that those are new and probably not easily available used) and expense.

    than to build 4 Billion worth of light rail

    Light rail lines do not serve just them. I was referring to the bus trips that are otherwise pretty empty besides those who don’t have another choice. In fact, light rail lines tend to attract an above-average amount of people who could and otherwise might drive.

    ONE OCCUPANT CARS IS IN THE DATA GIVEN

    But its not broken out to show what happens when one commuter switches from driving alone to taking transit. (And if many people did, buses would become more efficient by having more passengers)

  16. Jason McHuff Says: When drivers have to pay for the real cost of driving and things that encourage driving (i.e. low density development), then we can discuss that.
    JK: Got any evidence of that? I note that the city is spending $100-200 million to encourage high density in the Pearl. For how many housing units? If 5000 that would be a direct subsidy of $40,000 per unit – about 1/4 the cost of a whole house in an area without government created land shortages.

    Jason McHuff Says: And my hope is that if that were the case, much more trips would be well-utilized.
    JK: Are you saying that people drive too much? That people should drive less? Or not drive at all?

    Jason McHuff Says: In addition, if that lesser service is not provided, people might not use the service that is efficient and really makes a difference. Because TriMet is indeed a system.
    JK: Totally irrelevant – the system overall has poor efficiency cost and speed compared to small cars.

    Jason McHuff Says: (quoting JK) why are some areas not feasible for small cars

    Oh maybe where there’s heavy traffic and not tons of parking?
    JK: Oh, like the heavily subsidized, obsolete, center cities which are supported mostly be the concentration of government after most (but not all) other jobs have left. (Most of the biggest employers in downtown Portland are government.) Why not just let them die natural death and quit being subsidized by the surrounding areas?

    Jason McHuff Says: (quoting JK) That is just one of the many real world factors that make transit less efficient than small cars

    And trying to solve that problem by switching between small and big buses adds expenses–having to go get the other bus and having to have two separate fleets. In addition, its been said that smaller buses wear out sooner.
    JK: Yep, that is just one of the many real world factors that make transit less efficient than small cars

    Jason McHuff Says: (quoting JK) How is that relevant?

    Maybe because having a small car is not practical for them?
    JK: If a small car is too small, then a single seat on a transit vehicle will also be too small. If the issue is being unable to afford a car, it would be better for that person and cheaper for the rest of us to help them buy a car. Welfare would be appropriate for those very few transit riders that cannot drive and cannot afford alternates.

    Jason McHuff Says: (quoting JK) But they could get a hybrid SUV

    Requires another vehicle being built
    JK: So what? Is there some evil in building something? (Except high density housing)

    Jason McHuff Says: (considering that those are new and probably not easily available used)

    JK: Used hybrids not easily available? I found 590 on Craig’s list:
    http://portland.craigslist.org/search/?areaID=9&subAreaID=&query=hybrid&catAbb=sss

    Jason McHuff Says: (quoting JK) than to build 4 Billion worth of light rail

    Light rail lines do not serve just them. I was referring to the bus trips that are otherwise pretty empty besides those who don’t have another choice. In fact, light rail lines tend to attract an above-average amount of people who could and otherwise might drive.
    JK: Again, what is wrong with driving? Do you think people drive too much? Do you think people should not drive at all?

    Jason McHuff Says: (quoting JK) ONE OCCUPANT CARS IS IN THE DATA GIVEN

    But its not broken out to show what happens when one commuter switches from driving alone to taking transit. (And if many people did, buses would become more efficient by having more passengers)
    JK: Easy to figure out:

    One more person an the bus – low cost.
    Many more people an the y have to add a bus for ONE person – high cost, high energy.

    This all washes out in the averages. And the averages show transit is costly and inefficient. Some people claim that we just need to get more dense for transit to work better. That doesn’t actually work – even dense city’s transit don’t beat small cars. See: http://www.portlandfacts.com/top10bus.html

    And transit commuting takes about twice as long as driving (It even takes longer in NYC!): http://www.portlandfacts.com/commutetime.html

    Thanks
    JK

  17. Bob R. Says: (quoting JK) That statement reminds me of the argument claiming the market failed in the Betamax-VHS war because an inferior format, VHS won.

    OK, this is getting way, way, way off topic. And silly.
    JK: I cited it as a classic example of so called experts thinking they know what is best for people and if they disagree, the people are wrong. Such arrogance is very applicable to city planners.

    Bob R. Says: (quoting JK) “I really wanted to live in a high density TOD with high crime and crappy schools, but had to settle for this”

    That’s because people don’t talk that way, JK. You’re making stuff up, striking down arguments from people who don’t exist and who never said such things.
    JK: Actually it I said: As one person said, “I have never heard someone living in a low density cul-de-sac with a large backyard, low crime and good schools say ‘I really wanted to live in a high density TOD with high crime and crappy schools, but had to settle for this’”
    It was based on my several year old recollection of what Minnesota legislature Representative Mary Liz Holberg said in a talk called Is Government Planning Necessary? given in Minneapolis in 2005. The video is here: http://blip.tv/file/2769566 (The comment is at 3:03 in)

    Bob R. Says: (quoting JK) It is only broken in the dreams of out of touch planners who just know how other people should live. (While themselves often living in low density)

    Maybe it’s because your conjecture about the sinister hypocritical intentions of planners have no basis in reality.
    JK: If it is conjecture, how come Metro mandates increased density in the region and recognizes that this will increase housing costs and increase congestion. And how come some well known advocates of high density live in low density.

    Bob R. Says: I’ve met a few planners over the years, who live in a variety of situations, who aren’t out to “force” low density housing to go away, nor “force” cars to go away, etc.
    JK: I’ll admit that a few planners aren’t out to force those things. Unfortunately many are.

    Thanks
    JK

  18. I cited it as a classic example of so called experts thinking they know what is best for people and if they disagree, the people are wrong. Such arrogance is very applicable to city planners.

    I know of no serious economist with any real influence who has ever argued that the government should have intervened in the VHS/Betamax “wars”. I know plenty of people who wish that the other format would have won out for various reasons, but I’ve never seen a serious paper positing that the whole imbroglio was some sort of proof of some kind of failure of the free market.

    I’ve Googled around and found a few opinion columns railing against the idea, as you do, but who is pushing the original idea in the first place?

    I’ve also found no proof that the FCC or any regulatory agency ever pushed one format over another.

    So yes, off topic, and not applicable.

    how come Metro mandates increased density in the region

    Because the people have elected Metro representatives to make these kinds of decisions, and often re-elect them.

    There have been others who have run for Metro and have done fairly well at the polls. Steve, who comments here (I’m sure you know him), was one. Maybe he should run again, if enough people feel that Metro doesn’t really represent the views of the region.

  19. I’ll admit that a few planners aren’t out to force those things. Unfortunately many are.

    Name some, and be sure to include evidence.

  20. And no, I don’t buy into the whole “mandate” and “force” argument you’re perusing. Allowing greater density in certain areas doesn’t mean forcing it. Targets do not equal mandates.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *